


Ftonorable Robert Lansing, 
Secretary of State, 
Washington, D. C. 


Your Excellency: 


As all negotiations in view of lifting the blockade in behalf of the 
American relief action for Poland have hitherto yielded no satisfactory 
results, although the second year of the war is drawing to a close and 
the Polish relief committees formed especially for this purely philan- 
thropic purpose have exhausted all means at their disposal in the 
way of petitions and endeavors, I take the liberty of submitting to the 
Government of the United States in the name of the Supreme Na- 
tional Committee in Poland, which, with the aid of Polish Legions 
forming the military representation of the Polish nation in the present 
war, directs the struggle for the reconstruction of a Polish state, the 
following memorandum: 


The opposition of the Government of Great Britain to American 
relief action in Poland is closely connected with the opinion that the 
life of American citizens is not jeopardized by the embargo on the 
importation of foodstuffs into Germany and Austria-Hungary, and 
ipso facto into Poland occupied by their armies. This contention was 
given official confirmation by Lord Robert Cecil, Minister of War 
Trade of Great Britain, who in his declaration of May 6, 1916, said: 
“So far as is known, the measures taken by Great Britain against 
German trade have cost no neutral his life.” Public opinion in the 
United States seems to coincide with this contention, and insists at the 
same time that the Government of the United States should in its 
foreign policy bearing upon the problems of the present war, apply 
the principle formulated in one of the latest speeches of your E:xcel- 
lency, viz.: that “The violation of the natural right of life is a much 
more serious offense against an individual and against his nation than 
the violation of the legal right of property.” 


1 


The attitude taken by the Government of Great Britain cann 
be reconciled with the actual facts. 


On February 22, 1916, the Polish daily “Telegram Codzienny” 
(Daily Telegram), published in New York, contained the information 
that the wife of an American citizen, Mr. A. Cwi, from Duluth, Min- 
nesota, died of starvation in that part of Poland which is occupied by 
the army of Germany and that a similar fate is bound to befall the 
children of said A. Cwi, who, with their mother now dead, left Duiuth 
prior to the outbreak of the war for a visit to relatives abroad. Ac- 
cording to the information published by the above mentioned daily, ., 
Mr. A. Cwi was notified of the death of his wife by the Department of 
State at Washington, which based its notification on a report of the 
American consular service in that part of Poland which is occupied by 
the army of the German Empire. The same daily published on April 
26, 1916, the original text of a telegram which an American citizen, Mr. 
Michael Jagiello of New York, received from your Excellency, and ac- 
cording to this telegram the wife and children of the recipient, delayed 
by the outbreak of the war in Dolginow, in the former government dis- 
trict of Wilna, are “starving.” Dolginow, on the date on which the 
telegram was sent to Mr. Michael Jagiello, was still behind the Russian 
battlefront, while at present, as far as can be gathered from the official 
reports of army headquarters, it is occupied by the German army. 
This fact, owing to the system of blockade maintained by Great Brit- 
ain, increases the danger of death from starvation confronting Mrs. 
Jagiello and her children. As evidence of a great number of similar 
cases in which the lives of American citizens who were delayed in 
Poland by the outbreak of the war are jeopardized, I beg to enclose 
two affidavits, one by Mr. Louis Zygmanski and the other by Mr. 
Alexander Szye, stating that their families, including children who are 
native born citizens of the United States, are at present in the part of 
Poland occupied by German armies, that they are destitute and that it 
is not known whether they have perished or not, because all attempts 
at relief from America proved futile owing to the system of blockade 
practiced by Great Britain. I appreciate too highly the hospitality I 
am. enjoying in the United States to start a special inquiry through 
the press for locating and obtaining information as to cases of death of 
American citizens who were detained in Poland by the outbreak of the 






2 


present war. The instances cited above are sufficient proof that the 
Government of the United States would through a close inquiry, made 
by its diplomatic representatives, ascertain a great number of cases in 
Poland in which American citizens, and particularly women and chil- 
dren, are facing a serious danger of death or have already lost their 
lives through privations due to the impossibility of relief caused by the 
blockade practiced by Great Britain. 

In its note to the Imperial German Government of May 13, 
1915, the Government of the United States emphasized with utmost 
stress “that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be of neutral 
citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot lawfully or 
rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction of an un- 
armed merchantman.” With no less emphasis did the Government 
of the United States point out in its note to the Imperial German Gov- 
ernment of June 9, 1915, that it “is contending for nothing less high 
and sacred than the rights of humanity which every government honors 
itself in respecting and which no government is justified in resigning 
in behalf of those under its care and authority.” The protection of 
the lives of American citizens on the seas served as a formal occasion 
for this diplomatic action. As a matter of fact, the principle that was 
involved was the principle of “the sacred immunities of non-com- 
batants,” the principle that civilians, and particularly women and chil- 
dren should not become the victims of alleged military exigencies. 
May I, therefore, be permitted to enclose an affidavit of a Pole residing 
in America, Mr. John Jurciak from Cleveland, Ohio, who lost his 
entire family, consisting of his wife and three children, who died of 
starvation in Hrubieszow in the district of Lublin. There is hardly 
any necessity for more convincing evidence of the frightful conditions 
prevailing in Poland and of the terrible toll among the innocent 
sufferers of the blockade system of Great Britain which excludes the 
possibility of relief. 


The right to life is equal for all, as far as the civilian population 
and the protection of international law, which the principle of human- 
ity justly claims for the civilian population, are concerned. This 
right is not different on sea than on land, nor is it different in Belgium 
than in Poland. The tragedy of death from starvation, although 
such death takes longer to come is no less frightful than the tragedy 


3 


of death at sea; the suffering of a mother looking at her child slowly 
dying from privation and hunger, although it lasts longer, is not less 
intense than the agony of a mother whose child is drowned. Starvation 
kills slowly, by degrees, making the victim pass through all stages of 
agony. With all due respect to the policy of the United States which 
decided in favor of separating the question of defending the lives of 
American citizens on sea from the question of the system of blockade 
as practiced by Great Britain, I deem it my duty to ask that the fact 
be considered that the treating of the blockade system of Great Britain 
as a secondary issue prevented the nobly inspired American humani- 
tarian institutions from averting the death by starvation of a great 
number of civilians in Poland, particularly women and children, 
among whom families and dependents of American citizens were by 
no means lacking. 


In Germany and Austria-Hungary the territories of which were, 
to a small degree only, the theatre of the war, the system of blockade 
practiced by Great Britain undermines only the economic interest of 
the citizens of the neutral countries or of the civilian population, and 
regarding this, the average public opinion is correct. In Poland, which 
was and still is a theatre of continuous fighting, the same system of 
blockade maintained by Great Britain affects not only the economic 
interest of the civilian population, but what is worse, affects the right 
of the civilians to live. The system of blockade practiced by Great 
Britain while aimed at Germany and Austria-Hungary, hits Poland 
because there will be no famine either in Germany or Austria-Hun- 
gary, while famine has prevailed, still exists and will continue for quite 
a while in Poland. ‘This is a fact which cannot be reconciled either 
with the spirit or the letter of international law. 


It is superfluous for the Poles to analyze now at the close of the 
second year of this terrible war how far the British Order in Council 
of August 20, 1914, which included food supplies in the list of absolute 
contraband, violated the Declaration of London of 1909, or to refer 
to the fact that the mail seizures which render regular postal communi- 
cation and transmission of money from America to Poland impossible 
constitutes a violation of the international postal agreement of The 
Hague which declared the “inviolability” of all mail on the “high 
seas’ as one of the articles of the international law now in force. Be- 


4 


yond the competency of Poland to discuss is, furthermore, an equally 
important question, viz.: that although Germany and Austria-Hun- 
gary adapted the method of submarine warfare to the requirements 
of international law, which is in force at the present time, the British 
system of blockade, proclaimed as a repressive measure against Ger- 
many and Austria-Hungary for their previous method of using sub- 
marines, has failed to be modified up to the present time in accordance 
with the requirements of international law as it is in force at present, 
notwithstanding the fact that the alleged reason for this system was 
discontinued. ‘The Government of the United States, while discharg- 
ing its noble function of a guardian of the sanctity of international law, 
in its note to Great Britain of October 21, 1915, expressed its opinion 
on the above questions and characterized the British system of blockade 
as “ineffective, illegal and indefensible.” May I be permitted, how- 
ever, to call the attention of your Excellency to the fact that the 
British system of blockade with regard to the American relief action 
in Poland is not only illegal from the point of view of the Declaration 
of London, but what is worse, from the point of view of the Conven- 
tion at The Hague of 1907 relative to certain restrictions with regard 
to the exercise of the right of capture in naval war. This Convention 
stated plainly in Article 4 that “vessels charged with religious, scien- 
tific or philanthropic missions are exempt from capture.’ 'The Govy- 
ernment of Great Britain most assuredly did not ratify this Conven- 
tion on November 27, 1909, to ignore it a few years later to the detri- 
ment of Poland and of the idea of humanity. 


The apprehensions of the Government of Great Britain that 
Germany and Austria-Hungary might take advantage of food sup- 
plies imported into Poland by the American Relief Commission are 
easily understandable from the point of view of international law, 
because the above mentioned Convention as to the restrictions with 
regard to the exercise of the right of capture in naval war makes an 
indirect reservation in Article 3 to that effect—that powers bound by 
this agreement are not permitted “to take advantage for military 
purposes” of ships engaged on philanthropic missions. While appre- 
hensions of that nature on the part of the British Government were 
theoretically founded from the point of view of international law, in 
practice they were already an anachronism because Germany as well 


5 


as Austria-Hungary gave sufficient guarantees with regard to the 
relief action for Poland. As early as December 22, 1915, Mr. Herbert 
Hoover notified Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs of Great Britain, that on the part of the Imperial German 
authorities “protection will be afforded to local and imported supplies 
for the exclusive use of the civil population” in Poland. ‘This was 
an official statement of Mr. Herbert Hoover, a man of great merit 
and the generally respected chairman of the Belgian Relief Commis- 
sion, who made his appeal in behalf of Poland after a conscientious 
and impartial investigation of the conditions in Poland by his special 
emissaries. In order to check all the false and malicious reports on 
this delicate question, the Supreme National Committee, which I have 
the honor to represent in the United States, prevailed upon Germany 
and Austria-Hungary that these two powers notify, through their 
diplomatic representatives, the Government of the United States of 
their readiness to exclude the food supplies imported from America 
into Poland from requisition for military purposes. ‘This happened 
as early as March, 1916, and these guarantees were given both by 
Germany and Austria-Hungary. At present, according to the latest 
proposition of the Imperial German Government, submitted to the 
Government of the United States through the intermediary of the 
United States Embassy in Berlin, the Imperial German Government 
declared its readiness to guarantee the exemption from requisition for 
army purposes not only of all food supplies imported from America, 
but what is more, not to take advantage of the right to export local 
food supplies from Poland and promised to submit in this respect to 
the control by a neutral relief committee. The example of Belgium, 
where with much less extensive guarantees the work of the American 
Relief Commission not only developed, but was able to earn public 
recognition for its effective action on the part of the Government of 
Great Britain, tends to show that a relief action in Poland analogous 
to the relief action in Belgium is feasible, inasmuch as the guarantees 
offered by the Imperial German Government for such a relief action 
in Poland are more extensive than in the case of Belgium. As evi- 
dence that the guarantees given by Germany with regard to Belgium 
and northern France were absolutely sufficient, may I be permitted 
to quote a statement as authoritative as the utterance of the British 


6 


Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, who, on May 4, 1916, at the first annual 
meeting of the National Committee for the relief of Belgium in Lon- 
don said expressly that “Not a morsel of imported food was touched 
by the Germans.’ What is, therefore, the meaning of the obstinate 
attitude of the Government of Great Britain towards the relief action 
in Poland where the guarantees offered by Germany are far more 
extensive than those given for Belgium and after the Government of 
the United States, conscious of the fact that the devastation and misery 
in Poland are much greater than anywhere else, had most nobly 
offered its mediation as it had done in the case of Belgium. 


The conditions set forth by the Government of Great Britain with 
regard to permitting the relief action in Poland have in the last six 
months exceeded the limits permissible under international law as it 
exists at the present time. 


In the first phase of the negotiations, that is, between December 
22, 1915, and May 10, 1916, the Government of Great Britain insisted 
upon Germany and Austria-Hungary waiving their right of requisi- 
tioning’ local food supplies in Poland for the benefit of their armies. 
This was on the part of Great Britain a postulatum based on a prin- 
ciple formulated by Sir Edward Grey and published officially by the 
Foreign Office of Great Britain on February 6, 1916. The Hague 
regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land in their 
Article 52, permit of requisitions “for the needs of the army of occu- 
pation.’ On this basis the Russian army made in the first year of the 
present war large requisitions in Galicia which it then occupied, and 
for which Russia to this day owes huge sums to the frightfully afflicted 
Polish population of said province. On the same basis Germany and 
Austria-Hungary made large requisitions of food supplies in Russian 
territories, for which requisitions Germany and Austria-Hungary are 
paying in cash during the last few months, while the liabilities of 
Russia are still unsettled. ‘There is no doubt that the requisitions made 
by the armies of the two opposing sides were a tremendous burden for 
the Polish population. This, however, does not alter the fact that 
occurrences of this kind are the inevitable fate of every war-stricken 
country and that international law permits of such requisitions. 


Germany and Austria-Hungary are laboring under the pressure 


fi 


of the blockade maintained by Great Britain. To require, therefore, 
that Germany and Austria-Hungary should forego the advantage 
which international law permits in a country of occupation is unques- 
tionably excessive, and it is difficult to suppose that the Government 
of Great Britain should be ignorant of the legal status of the question. 
It is, therefore, the more painful to me to state that for five long winter 
months, which were the hardest to endure for Poland, Sir Kdward 
Grey insisted upon Germany and Austria-Hungary giving guaran- 
tees that “the native stocks of foodstuffs shall not be drawn upon to 
maintain the occupying army.” In other words, he insisted upon 
Germany and Austria-Hungary foregoing the advantage to which 
they are entitled under international law, a request which was exceed- 
ing the limits set by said law, and a request both illegal and impracti- 
cable. After five months the Government of Great Britain realized 
the illegality of Sir Edward Grey’s request and dropped this condition, 
but who will give back to Poland the lives of so many victims, particu- 
larly women and children, who could have been saved during these 
frightful winter months, but were not saved because the Government 
of Great Britain insisted upon more extensive guarantees than were 
admissible under international law, thus rendering the relief action — 
impossible. 7 


On May 10, 1916, the Government of Great Britain announced 
officially that it accepted in principle the new suggestions submitted 
and drafted by the Rockefeller Foundation, which justly enjoys a 
world-wide reputation for noble accomplishments. This conditional 
acceptance the Government of Great Britain, however, made de- 
pendent on new terms. Instead of the conditions that Germany and 
Austria-Hungary should discontinue to exercise their right of requisi- 
tion on behalf of their armies of occupation, which condition was 
dropped, the Government of Great Britain set forth the demand that 
Germany and Austria-Hungary should for the price of permitting the 


relief action in Poland organize themselves an analogous action in 
Servia, Montenegro and Albania and, furthermore, that they should 


guarantee to the “neutral relief authorities absolutely free and unfet- 
tered facilities of communication with the London office and for an 
investigation of the carrying out of the enemy’s undertakings.” No 
one can better sympathize with the misery in Servia, Montenegro and 


8 


Albania than Poland, who learned in this terrible war to measure the 
sufferings of others by her own agony. ‘This, however, does not justify 
the demand that the American relief action in Poland should be made 
dependent upon the German relief action in the Balkans. Neither 
international law nor ethics permit of making a population facing 
death from starvation a subject of bargaining on a question which, 
like the case of Poland, is a question of suffering and of philanthropy, 
but, nevertheless, is a separate question calling for an action inde- 
pendent of the situation in Poland. It is also painful to behold that 
the Government of Great Britain failed to set forth this demand when 
first formulating its terms. On February 6, 1916, there was the same 
amount of misery and want in Servia, Montenegro and Albania as on 
May 10 of the same year. If, therefore, the Government of Great 
Britain failed to insist upon this condition on February 6, 1916, still 
less should it have insisted upon it on May 10, if said Government was 
really anxious to settle the question of the relief action for Poland 
which was so terribly and so unnecessarily belated. 


The Government of Great Britain demanded the guarantee as to 
the organizing of a relief action in the Balkans exclusively from Ger- 
many, although Servia, Montenegro and Albania are within the 
sphere of occupation of Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. No govern- 
ment can formally give any guarantee as to territory which is not 
“actually placed under the authority” of its army, and where, there- 
fore, in conformity with Article 42 of the Hague regulations respect- 
ing the laws and customs of war on land, the right of occupation cannot 
be “exercised.” ‘This would be inconsistent with the provisions of 
international law and would be improper with regard to the powers 
which occupy the territory of war in the Balkans and would seriously 
jeopardize their prestige. In the same way the demand that the 
American Relief Commission should have “absolutely free’ control 
over the “carrying out of the undertakings” of the armies of occupation 
in Poland is formulated in such a way that it exceeds the question of 
control over local as well as imported foodstuffs. The Belgium Relief 
Commission had no such wide competency but it still accomplished a 
task which benefited the unfortunate population of Belgium as well 
as did honor to the idea of humanity. Why should in Poland espe- 
cially an analogous work encounter demands of Great Britain exceed- 


2) 


ing those which were set forth in connection with Belgium and 
Northern France? I take the liberty of stating that Sir Edward Grey 
failed to demand such far-reaching control when first formulating his 
conditions. On February 6, 1916, the Government of Great Britain 
was satisfied with the relief committee in Poland having only a “free 
hand in the distribution of all stocks of foodstuffs,” that is, of food- 
stuffs both imported from America as well as local foodstuffs turned 
over to said commission by the authorities of the armies of occupation 
in Poland. At that time there was no question as to the right to an 
“absolutely free investigation over the carrying out of the undertak- 
ings’ of the armies of occupation of Poland. It is, therefore, painful 
to me to state that the Government of Great Britain not only exceeded 
during these negotiations, covering a period of six months, the limits 
of international law now in force, but what is worse, did not refrain 
from increasing its demands above the original conditions set forth 
as acceptable. 


The burden of responsibility on the part of Great Britain for 
preventing American relief action in Poland increases when the fact 
is considered that the Government of Great Britain is influenced 
in its attitude by Russia, although Russia mainly was guilty of the 
greatest devastation of Poland, when in the summer of 1915 the 
Russian army retreated along the entire battlefront and for alleged 
military exigencies laid the country bare before the advancing armies 
of Germany and Austria-Hungary. This happened on the right bank 
of the Vistula, that is, in the entire territory of Kastern Poland through 
which extended the lines of the general retreat of the Russian armies. 
The truth of these facts was ascertained by neutral correspondents 
from all over the world. Opinions, however, are not lacking which 
characterize every mention of this devastation committed by Russia in 
Poland as a political propaganda, and as an attempt of diminishing in 
that way the responsibility of Germany and Austria-Hungary for 
requisitions made and war damages caused by their armies in Poland. 
It is quite true that Germany and Austria-Hungary made large requi- 
sitions in Poland and owing to their offensive a large number of 
villages and towns suffered larger or smaller damage from artillery 
fire. Conscious of their responsibility guaranteed to the war-stricken 
population by international law, Germany and Austria-Hungary for 


10 


some time past have been paying in cash for requisitions made in 
Poland and in part even for damages to the suffering population. 
Requisitions are recognized by international law and are different 
from devastation made purposely and on a large scale for the purpose 
of destroying the stock owned by the population, of burning villages, 
and crops so as to render the quartering and provisioning of the 
enemy's army impossible. During the two years of the present war 
neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary exceeded the limit of damages 
that ordinarily result from requisitions and artillery fire, while Russia 
in addition to the regular requisitions and damages caused by actual 
fighting, ordered and executed more or less thoroughly a general 
devastation of the country in Eastern Poland, or in other words, for 
its own military interests exposed millions of civilian population, and 
particularly women and children, to sufferings of starvation only for 
the purpose of rendering the quartering and provisioning of the armies 
of Germany and Austria-Hungary more difficult. The lives of the 
Polish civilian population, and particularly women and children, were 
sacrificed for protection of the then retreating Russian army. 


On July 29, 1915, the Russian War Office in Petrograd issued 
a communiqué in which the retreat of the Russian army was compared 
to the famous retreat of 1812 when the Russian armies executed a 
backward movement before the onrush of Napoleon. According to 
the text published in the New York Times of July 30, 1915, Russia 
applied a well-tested method, viz.: that “everything that might be of 
use to the enemy has been prepared beforehand for removal and taken 
away. ‘The same analogy was used with the full official emphasis by 
the Russian Minister of War Polivanoff, who, at the opening of the 
Duma on August 2, 1915, had to perform the official duty of explain- 
ing the then existing strategical situation in Poland. According to 
the report of the Reuter’s ‘Telegram Company, which was published 
in the New York Times via London on August 2, 1915, General 
Polivanoff, in his speech in the Duma, said officially that in analogy 
with the tactics of 1812 “we shall to-day perhaps give up Warsaw as 
then we gave up Moscow in order to insure final victory.” But prior 
to the admission made by the Russian War Office as to the adoption of 
the tactics of 1812, the telegraph agencies working under the military 
censorship in London and Petrograd swamped the neutral press of 


11 


the entire world with detailed information as to the nature of the tactics 
of retreat of 1812. I am taking the liberty of quoting from the New 
York Times a despatch from London dated July 23, 1915, which, 
after passing through British censorship, read as follows: “In falling 
back the Russians are employing the tactics with which they harassed 
Napoleon in 1812; that is, they are not only burning all bridges and 
destroying roads, but are laying waste the countryside with fire and 
dynamite, removing such provisions as they can, destroying such as 
they cannot take away, driving cattle and other live stock before them, 
and leaving for the invader ruin and desolate waste.” A despatch 
from Petrograd dated July 3, 1915, although unofficial but passed 
by the very strict Russian censorship, and what is more, published by 
the British press, and reprinted by the New York Times of July 31, 
1915, informed the world that Russia decided to apply the terrible 
tactics of the Napoleonic wars “in consultation with her Allies.” It 
appears that not with Russia alone rests the responsibility for the fact 
that for alleged strategical reasons the entire territory of Eastern 
Poland was turned into smoking ruins and the lives of civilian popu- 
lation, and particularly women and children, were sacrificed to shield 
the retreat of the Russian armies. 


The Hague regulations of 1907 respecting the laws and customs 
of war on land provide in Article 22 that “the right of belligerents to 
adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.’ Although 
there is no special Convention which would prohibit the exposing of 
the civilian population, and particularly women and children, to the 
danger of starvation for strategical reasons, there is an explicit pro- 
vision in the introduction to the Convention relating to the laws and 
customs of war on land to the effect that “in cases not included in the 
Regulations adopted by the high contracting parties, the inhabitants 
and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the 
principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages estab- 
lished among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the 
dictate of the public conscience.” But does conscience and humanity 
permit of forcibly depriving the civilian population of food supplies 
and exposing them to the danger of destitution only in order to hamper 
the enemy’s progress and to try to compel him to feed the starving 
population in the newly occupied territory? There is also no special 


12 


Convention which would prohibit the using of civilian population as a 
shield for the armies attacking positions of the enemy, but the judg- 
ment of conscience on this question is settled among civilized nations 
which earnestly and sincerely uphold the principles of humanity. 


By virtue of international law the duty of protecting the civilian 
population in an occupied territory rests with the army of occupation. 
This side of the question was familiar to the Russian authorities when 
the latter, acting in an understanding with Russia’s allies, ordered a 
complete devastation of Eastern Poland. The purpose of an action 
thus conceived cannot give room to any doubts. Russia consciously 
and with a definite purpose devastated Poland in order to compel the 
invading armies of Germany and Austria-Hungary to take up, at 
least partially, the relief of the unfortunate population because even 
regardless of the welfare of the population, the very interest of the 
army of occupation requires that this population should not become, 
through lack of food supplies, the carrier of contagious diseases, and 
should not, from sheer despair, provoke disturbances on the lines of 
communication of the armies of occupation. Thus the devastation of 
Poland was supposed to become one of the expedients of the economic 
war whichis raging parallel to the military war. 'Through this method 
of Russian tactics, Germany and Austria-Hungary were expected to 
face the catastrophe of starvation threatening the population of 
Poland, and were to suffer the effects of the bitter feelings of the Poles 
unless the armies of occupation were to use part of their food supplies 
for purposes of a relief action. 'That this plan failed to materialize to 
the extent it was schemed, is due to not a small degree to the Polish 
Relief Committees and to the spirit of sacrifice and the circumspection 
prevailing in the Polish nation. It remains, however, a fact that the 
lives of the Polish civilian population, and particularly of women and 
children, were used by the Allies as one of the weapons of the present 
war. ‘This is not a lesser violation of international law, and not a 
lesser crime against the principles of humanity, than driving the 
civilian population in front of an army so that the enemy might use 
up a part of its ammunition on the defenseless cvvilans. With full 
consciousness of responsibility, I formulate this accusation and submit 
it to the tribunal of conscience of all neutral nations, and in the first 


13 


place to the conscience of the United States which showed so much 
energy in defending the sacred right of civilians on the high seas. 


The Government of the United States in its note of October 22, 
1914, informed the Government of Great Britain that it “will insist 
that the rights and duties of the United States and its citizens in the 
present war be defined by the existing rules of international law and 
the treaties of the United States, irrespective of the provisions of the 
Declaration of London and that the Government reserves to itself the 
right to enter a protest or demand in each case in which those rights 
and duties so defined are violated or their free exercise interfered with 
by the authorities of the British Government.” ‘The Government of 
the United States in its note of July 21, 1915, addressed to the Im- 
perial German Government declared not less clearly that “legal and 
inhuman acts, however justifiable they may be thought to be, against 
an enemy who is believed to have acted in contravention of law and 
humanity, are manifestly indefensible when they violate the right to 
life itself. If a belligerent cannot retaliate against an enemy without 
injuring the lives of neutrals, as well as their property, humanity as 
well as justice and due regard for the dignity of neutral powers, should 
dictate that the practice be discontinued.” May I, therefore, be per- 
mitted to submit to the Government of the United States the following 
charges: 


I. The lives of civilian population in Poland, and particularly 
of women and children, are jeopardized by privations, and 
among the victims there are citizens of the United States. 


IT, The system of blockade maintained by Great Britain with 
regard to the American relief action in Poland is illegal 
both from the point of view of the Declaration of London 
as well as from the point of view of the Hague Convention 
relative to certain restrictions with regard to the exercise 
of the right of capture in naval war. 


ITI. The famine in Poland was caused mainly by the devasta- 
tion of the eastern portion of the country, devastation 
which the Russian armies retreating from Poland inflicted 
for reasons of alleged military exigencies, which consti- 
tuted an act equally inhuman as illegal, and for which by 


14 


virtue of Article 3 of the Hague Convention respecting 
the laws and customs of war on land, a huge “compensa- 
tion” is due to the Polish population from Russia. 


IV. Russia while not being physically in the position because of 
the present strategical situation to discharge her obliga- 
tions to the Polish population, at the same time upholds 
the opposition of Great Britain to the American relief 
action in Poland, although this opposition is the more 
groundless as in the entire territory through which passed 
the retreat of the Russian armies in the summer and fall 
of 1915, the Polish population became the victim of 
measures of devastation taken not by the invading armies 
of Germany and Austria-Hungary, but by the Govern- 
ment of Russia, which in the eyes of England has not 
ceased to be the government of said population. 


In the name of the Supreme National Committee of Poland, 
which I represent in the United States, I have the honor of submitting 
on the basis of the above charges a protest to the Government of the 
United States against further opposition on the part of Great Britain 
to the American relief action in Poland and of asking that pressure 
be brought through diplomatic action in the following directions: 


I. That the Government of Great Britain accept the suggestions 
for compromise made by the Imperial German Govern- 
ment in June, 1916, because the guarantees off ered in these 
suggestions satisfy all requirements which are admissible 
from the point of view of Article 8 of the Hague Conven- 
tion relating to restrictions of the exercise of right of 
capture of vessels in naval war, and even exceed the guar- 
antee extended to the American relief action in Belgium. 


II, That the Government of Great Britain should not limit the 
duration of the relief action in Poland because any limita- 
tion of a purely philanthropic action is illegal from the 
point of view of the Hague Convention relating to restric- 
tions of the right of capture of vessels in naval war, and 
besides, because in the period of time ending with October 


15 


1, 1916, that is, within the period of time originally sug- 
gested, any serious relief action 1s physically impossible 
owing to the time limit set. 


Since Kosciuszko and Pulaski performed their duty to liberty 
and freedom on American soil, it is the first time that the Government 
of the United States has the chance of intervening actively in the de- 
fense of Poland. For this reason the Polish Supreme National Com- — 
mittee never failed during this war to impress upon the Poles residing 
in the United States the imperative duty of loyalty as demanded by 
the requirements of neutrality observed by the United States. Not- 
withstanding all false and slanderous rumors which endeavored to 
harm the interests of Poland, rumors by which a part of the American 
press was at times misled, there is no longer any doubt possible that the 
Poles who are enjoying the hospitality of this country complied faith- 
fully and loyally with the requirements of neutrality observed by the 
United States. Fully confident, therefore, Poland expects that the 
Government of the United States, in conformity with its intentions 
already manifested, will exercise the full force of its authority and in- 
fluence on the international relations in order to make possible for the 
American humanitarian institutions the. carrying out of the relief 
action in Poland, which said institutions most nobly offered and which 
for reasons I took the liberty of dwelling upon on the preceding pages 
of this memorandum, unfortunately failed to materialize. 


Deleyate for America of the Polish Supreme 


National Committee. 


New York, June 21, 1916. 


16 


